Hi folks,
I was hoping to call this proposal to a vote:
https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-160
It’s been updated with the latest feedback from Andrea and Jody and should be ready to go.
Thanks!
-Justin
+1
Ian
···
On 3 July 2017 at 18:35, Justin Deoliveira <jdeolive@anonymised.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
I was hoping to call this proposal to a vote:
https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-160
It’s been updated with the latest feedback from Andrea and Jody and should be ready to go.
Thanks!
-Justin
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world’s most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@anonymised.com.366…sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
–
Ian Turton
Hi Justin,
+1.
Cheers
Andrea
···
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Justin Deoliveira <jdeolive@anonymised.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
I was hoping to call this proposal to a vote:
https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-160
It’s been updated with the latest feedback from Andrea and Jody and should be ready to go.
Thanks!
-Justin
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world’s most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@anonymised.com.366…sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
–
Regards,
Andrea Aime
==
GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://goo.gl/it488V for more information.
Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolf
Technical Lead
GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via di Montramito 3/A
55054 Massarosa (LU)
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39 339 8844549
http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it
AVVERTENZE AI SENSI DEL D.Lgs. 196/2003
Le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio di posta elettronica e/o nel/i file/s allegato/i sono da considerarsi strettamente riservate. Il loro utilizzo è consentito esclusivamente al destinatario del messaggio, per le finalità indicate nel messaggio stesso. Qualora riceviate questo messaggio senza esserne il destinatario, Vi preghiamo cortesemente di darcene notizia via e-mail e di procedere alla distruzione del messaggio stesso, cancellandolo dal Vostro sistema. Conservare il messaggio stesso, divulgarlo anche in parte, distribuirlo ad altri soggetti, copiarlo, od utilizzarlo per finalità diverse, costituisce comportamento contrario ai principi dettati dal D.Lgs. 196/2003.
The information in this message and/or attachments, is intended solely for the attention and use of the named addressee(s) and may be confidential or proprietary in nature or covered by the provisions of privacy act (Legislative Decree June, 30 2003, no.196 - Italy’s New Data Protection Code).Any use not in accord with its purpose, any disclosure, reproduction, copying, distribution, or either dissemination, either whole or partial, is strictly forbidden except previous formal approval of the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact immediately the sender by telephone, fax or e-mail and delete the information in this message that has been received in error. The sender does not give any warranty or accept liability as the content, accuracy or completeness of sent messages and accepts no responsibility for changes made after they were sent or for other risks which arise as a result of e-mail transmission, viruses, etc.
0
···
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Justin Deoliveira <jdeolive@anonymised.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
I was hoping to call this proposal to a vote:
https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-160
It’s been updated with the latest feedback from Andrea and Jody and should be ready to go.
Thanks!
-Justin
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world’s most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@anonymised.com.366…sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
Regards,
Simone Giannecchini
GeoServer Professional Services from the experts!
Visit http://goo.gl/it488V for more information.
Ing. Simone Giannecchini
@simogeo
Founder/Director
GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via di Montramito 3/A
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39 333 8128928
http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it
AVVERTENZE AI SENSI DEL D.Lgs. 196/2003
Le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio di posta elettronica e/o nel/i file/s allegato/i sono da considerarsi strettamente riservate. Il loro utilizzo è consentito esclusivamente al destinatario del messaggio, per le finalità indicate nel messaggio stesso. Qualora riceviate questo messaggio senza esserne il destinatario, Vi preghiamo cortesemente di darcene notizia via e-mail e di procedere alla distruzione del messaggio stesso, cancellandolo dal Vostro sistema. Conservare il messaggio stesso, divulgarlo anche in parte, distribuirlo ad altri soggetti, copiarlo, od utilizzarlo per finalità diverse, costituisce comportamento contrario ai principi dettati dal D.Lgs. 196/2003.
The information in this message and/or attachments, is intended solely for the attention and use of the named addressee(s) and may be confidential or proprietary in nature or covered by the provisions of privacy act (Legislative Decree June, 30 2003, no.196 - Italy’s New Data Protection Code).Any use not in accord with its purpose, any disclosure, reproduction, copying, distribution, or either dissemination, either whole or partial, is strictly forbidden except previous formal approval of the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact immediately the sender by telephone, fax or e-mail and delete the information in this message that has been received in error. The sender does not give any warranty or accept liability as the content, accuracy or completeness of sent messages and accepts no responsibility for changes made after they were sent or for other risks which arise as a result of e-mail transmission, viruses, etc.
Hey Justin / Kevin:
Was talking with Kevin last week, he is looking to fine tuning the output of point locations to use for labeling when doing vector tile output.
So you are both working on “calculating a better centroid” - can you share top level format options to avoid duplication?
&format_options=centroid_contain:true;centroid_samples:10;centroid_clip:true
+1 to your GSIP, I do want to hear from Kevin if we can 
···
On 3 July 2017 at 10:35, Justin Deoliveira <jdeolive@anonymised.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
I was hoping to call this proposal to a vote:
https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-160
It’s been updated with the latest feedback from Andrea and Jody and should be ready to go.
Thanks!
-Justin
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world’s most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@anonymised.com.366…sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
–
Jody Garnett
On 2017-07-05 11:56 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
Hey Justin / Kevin:
Was talking with Kevin last week, he is looking to fine tuning the
output of point locations to use for labeling when doing vector tile
output.So you are both working on "calculating a better centroid" - can you
share top level format options to avoid duplication?&format_options=centroid_contain:true;centroid_samples:10;centroid_clip:true
+1 to your GSIP, I do want to hear from Kevin if we can
Yes this makes sense, At the moment I'm just working on including
precomputed label points in the vector tiles using the existing labeler,
but it's quite likely that would benefit from this kind of additional
control in future, so it would make sense to do it in a format agnostic
way now (at least in terms of keywords we're adding).
--
Kevin Michael Smith
<smithkm@anonymised.com>
I kind of disagree with trying to generalize the parameters now… if another format comes along and adds a similar capability will it really have the exact same options with the exact same semantics? I am kind of doubtful.
Unless there is a strong consensus that this has to happen I’m inclined to leave the options as is and KML specific until there is a more concrete need to coalesce them.
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 1:29 PM Kevin Smith <smithkm@anonymised.com> wrote:
On 2017-07-05 11:56 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
Hey Justin / Kevin:
Was talking with Kevin last week, he is looking to fine tuning the
output of point locations to use for labeling when doing vector tile
output.So you are both working on “calculating a better centroid” - can you
share top level format options to avoid duplication?&format_options=centroid_contain:true;centroid_samples:10;centroid_clip:true
+1 to your GSIP, I do want to hear from Kevin if we can
Yes this makes sense, At the moment I’m just working on including
precomputed label points in the vector tiles using the existing labeler,
but it’s quite likely that would benefit from this kind of additional
control in future, so it would make sense to do it in a format agnostic
way now (at least in terms of keywords we’re adding).–
Kevin Michael Smith
<smithkm@anonymised.com…>
If you don't think vector tiles label points are relevant that's good
enough for me. I just want to watch out for corners we might paint
ourselves into.
+1
On 2017-07-05 07:45 PM, Justin Deoliveira wrote:
I kind of disagree with trying to generalize the parameters now… if
another format comes along and adds a similar capability will it
really have the exact same options with the exact same semantics? I am
kind of doubtful.Unless there is a strong consensus that this has to happen I’m
inclined to leave the options as is and KML specific until there is a
more concrete need to coalesce them.On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 1:29 PM Kevin Smith <smithkm@anonymised.com
<mailto:smithkm@anonymised.com>> wrote:On 2017-07-05 11:56 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> Hey Justin / Kevin:
>
> Was talking with Kevin last week, he is looking to fine tuning the
> output of point locations to use for labeling when doing vector tile
> output.
>
> So you are both working on "calculating a better centroid" - can you
> share top level format options to avoid duplication?
>
>
&format_options=centroid_contain:true;centroid_samples:10;centroid_clip:true
>
> +1 to your GSIP, I do want to hear from Kevin if we canYes this makes sense, At the moment I'm just working on including
precomputed label points in the vector tiles using the existing
labeler,
but it's quite likely that would benefit from this kind of additional
control in future, so it would make sense to do it in a format
agnostic
way now (at least in terms of keywords we're adding).--
Kevin Michael Smith
<smithkm@anonymised.com <mailto:smithkm@anonymised.com>>
--
Kevin Michael Smith
<smithkm@anonymised.com>
Thanks to everyone who weighed in on this one, i’ve gone ahead and merged the change and marked the proposal as complete.
One small change though, I found that making the new options to clip and force containment the default behaviour introduced a number of failures in the test cases, some of which are kind of subtle and have the chance of tripping up users as well so I decided to play it safe for now and keep the behaviour as is. So all the new kml centroid options are still opt-in.
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:30 AM Kevin Smith <smithkm@anonymised.com> wrote:
If you don’t think vector tiles label points are relevant that’s good enough for me. I just want to watch out for corners we might paint ourselves into.
+1
On 2017-07-05 07:45 PM, Justin Deoliveira wrote:
I kind of disagree with trying to generalize the parameters now… if another format comes along and adds a similar capability will it really have the exact same options with the exact same semantics? I am kind of doubtful.
Unless there is a strong consensus that this has to happen I’m inclined to leave the options as is and KML specific until there is a more concrete need to coalesce them.
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 1:29 PM Kevin Smith <smithkm@anonymised.com> wrote:
On 2017-07-05 11:56 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
Hey Justin / Kevin:
Was talking with Kevin last week, he is looking to fine tuning the
output of point locations to use for labeling when doing vector tile
output.So you are both working on “calculating a better centroid” - can you
share top level format options to avoid duplication?&format_options=centroid_contain:true;centroid_samples:10;centroid_clip:true
+1 to your GSIP, I do want to hear from Kevin if we can
Yes this makes sense, At the moment I’m just working on including
precomputed label points in the vector tiles using the existing labeler,
but it’s quite likely that would benefit from this kind of additional
control in future, so it would make sense to do it in a format agnostic
way now (at least in terms of keywords we’re adding).–
Kevin Michael Smith
<smithkm@anonymised.com>-- Kevin Michael Smith [<smithkm@anonymised.com>](mailto:smithkm@anonymised.com)